Nimrod Information
 

In recent weeks there has been much talk (even in the Commons) of the number of serious Nimrod bomb bay fuel leaks that have occurred since the XV230 incident, many after AAR. But it is obvious to everyone that bomb bay fuel leaks did not start on 2nd Sept 2006, the accident simply brought an ongoing issue to a head.

I understand the XV230 had fuel leak problems before the accident, but the cause and rectification had become routine within the fleet. The only reason why flying could continue in the Gulf on 3rd Sept (next day), was because the likely cause was known and checks revealed that the a/c required to fly was considered low risk.

It's a case of operations before safety.

DV

Nimrod Aircraft

Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has received representations on the safety of Nimrod aircraft from fleet flight crew since September 2006; [126588]
(2) whether he received representations on the safety of the Nimrod fleet before September 2006; [126589]
(3) what representations he has received on the use of fuel lines on Nimrod aircraft. [126481]

Mr. Ingram: Representations has been defined as parliamentary questions and letters from third parties to Ministers.
Defence Ministers did not receive any official representations on the safety of the Nimrod fleet or the use of fuel lines on Nimrod aircraft from

Since September 2006, whilst Defence Ministers have received official representations on the safety of Nimrod aircraft from members of the public, none of these referred to the use of fuel lines on the aircraft. I have no evidence to suggest that any of these representations were from serving flight crew.

In recent weeks the Department has received three requests under the Freedom of Information Act on the safety of Nimrod aircraft and on the use of fuel lines on the aircraft. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these requests are from serving flight crew.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070420/text/70420w0003.htm#07042031000045

Emergency landing at airport 6th July 2006
 

Emergency landing at airport 6th July 2006
An RAF 'Nimrod' aircraft encountered an unspecified problem when landing at Gibraltar yesterday afternoon, with the MOD saying it was 'a minor emergency'.

It is known that the aircraft approached Gibraltar shedding fuel, some of which was sprawled over the runway and required the RAF fire service to hose down and make the runway clean and safe.

It is not clear if the aircraft had to release its fuel due to weight considerations on landing, or whether it developed a leak.

Does anyone know if it was the XV230 as my son did a fly past in July 2006 over Gibraltar

Tappers Dad
 

Not sure which aircraft it was or what the problem was, however the following are several reasons why this could have happened: The landing distance available at Gib is somewhere around 5700 feet. This is not very long for a heavy aircraft to stop on before either the brakes fail and/or it goes for a dip in the Med. If the aircraft had a problem that required it to be landed sooner rather than later, fuel would have been deliberately dumped to reduce the all up weight during its positioning for an approach. Nimrods are also notorious for venting fuel when the tanks are reasonably full, particularly when it is warm (eg Gib in July). It is therefore possible that the fuel "leak" may have been normal venting that continued after the aircraft landed.

Of course, it could have been a large fuel leak.

Hope this helps and sorry I don't know what actually happened.

Tapper's dad - Firstly and most importantly my most sincere condolences to you and your family. I spent 2 years up at Kinloss and loved every minute of it. This is my first post on the site but I may be able offer some info. I was on a trip to Gib where we performed a flypast with your son's crew but that was in mid-late June. It was for some big celebration in the main square in Gib (I hope this helps to narrow down the dates). If this is the same trip you refer to, we did not fly in XV230 and we did not experience any emergency. We did return back to Kinloss earlier than expected, det should have been a week and turned into just a couple of days. I hope this helps.

Tappers Dad, the aircraft concerned was not XV230.
The "incident" at Gibraltar was due to an electric actuator on one of the 4A fuel tank failing after jettison which prevented the 4A tank jettison valve from closing.
RIP CXX/3

WHY
 

Thanks Guys you have helped. I suppose I am trying to find the reason why they all died. I now the aircraft exploded but I need to know why, not the BOI type of why but the Dad type. Why my boy, why that aircraft, why did it leak,why couldn't they stop the fire, why can't I talk to him anymore. And why is everyone so tight lipped.

From the House of Lords

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he comment on reports that the refurbished fleet of Nimrods in Afghanistan will have the same fuel system as caused the disaster with the loss of 14 personnel last year?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to comment on that because the board of inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod has not reported; of course, I will be able to once that has taken place

Mmmmmm makes you think

On 8th Nov 2006 a Nimrod landed safely, after AAR, with a major fuel leak. At first glance it seems similar to the incident on 2nd Sept (XV230), all that was missing was the ignition source. Does anyone know what the investigation of this incident revealed?

DV

Now there is a classical piece of political interpretation. He knew what was meant, WE know what was meant, but let's not answer the question.

Nimrod Information / Panorama Mon 4th June (Merged)
 

Help yourselves
 

Thank you for all your support Ian and all the questions you have asked about safety in the House Of Commons.
Here is a little part of his recent speech.

"I am always struck by the enormous enthusiasm and resilience of our soldiers and airmen. They make it their business to get the job done in some of the most hostile terrain in the world, even though they are unfortunately often without the proper kit. Our people are performing daily miracles in these places and they deserve the united applause and support of this House—I know that they get it."

"They also deserve the Government’s support in all shapes and forms, especially through procurement. That means providing more than the bare minimum. I have no doubt that the Minister will respond, as we all sometimes do, by reeling off huge, impressive-sounding figures to show how much has been spent and what has happened. We all accept that defence is always expensive; everybody is aware that even the bare minimum does not come cheap. My argument is that we are in danger of cutting too many corners and of procuring nothing but danger for the very people who courageously carry the flag for this country."

Ian,

I will call you within the next couple of days.
TSM

Come on guys, this is the opportunity many of us have been waiting for - contact this chap and lets try to stop this ever happening again. We owe it to all the friends we've lost surely?

Thanks for the reply
 

Many thanks I will be in Parliament next Tuesday. If you could call me any time after that. The number comes through to my desk.

Ian

Yes, we are all duty bound to question and challenge failings within our system, so as to minimise the loss of life in an inherently dangerous environment. However, this is not the path that we should choose to take to achieve this.

I am appalled that a sitting MP should post such a Thread.

Im glad we agree.


Why not? A person has asked for information and assistance, from people who can offer it.


Wrong. This is democracy in action. Albeit with a modern twist, it is part of the democratic process - the great British public, through their legally and democratically elected representatives, opening up debate on an issue which affects us all.

That is what they're there for, and I applaud the honourable MP for offering his assistance.


Finally, lets have some Justice for Sgt Ben Knight, and all the others who've been injured or killed, due to lack of proper equipment.

Level 28's comments remind me of the inadequately testiculated so-called leaders who were petrified of the grass roots truth getting outside the 'chain of command'....:yuk:....and compromising their onward and upward thrust of ambition - and b*gger the truth

Not that I'm advocating anarchy, more that the constipating "There are correct channels" nonsense should be ignored, when that is clearly going nowhere as the Ministerial platitudes exhibit only too clearly.

Good on Ian Lidell-Grainger - an MP who is openly prepared to bypass the MoD's $hit-filters is a rare asset indeed.....:ok:

well said
 

i thinks it great a mp who actually takes a proper intrest in what the people who work with these aircraft actually have to say.

as a member of the armed forces i am appualled by the treatment of us by the goverment.

ive recently been told by higher authority that my trade is to be made obsolete because its a non deployable trade meaning there is no operational need for us in places like afgan and iraq. however we do work in akotiri and falklands where there is an established post for our trade. which are now closed to us.

so for those who have not left or are waiting to leave the trade. we are going to be sent to hubs where they are going to gather the last of our trade so we can see our time out.

but here is the part which is the kick in the teeth we will be used to go out to afgan and iraq as driver escort and guards. and while we are at the hubs we will be in/wating/just back from these places.

its just a mess please someone sort it out

Well the official channels are obviously working aren't they Level 28?!

Well done Mr Liddell-Grainger, you have accepted that the RAF is screwed and that the Nimrod is one of the areas that is suffering badly right now.

We look to you to fulfil your honour and keep your duty by ensuring our servicemen get the representation they deserve from someone who won't let the matter drop.

Level 28
I'm disgusted by your comments, and if anyone is appalled, it will be the majority on here who will read your utterly pointless contribution to this thread.
It seems to me that this is the perfect thing for the RAF at the moment; an MP who can take the problems of the service directly to the House of Commons and, hopefully, get things sorted out, and I applaud him for having the balls to offer his services. I would only encourage others to give him a call or send him a PM.
The only reason I can think that anyone would disagree is if perhaps you have something to hide maybe??
TSM

ps, Level 28, what would be your prefered path?

Level 28 could well be a Senior Air Rank, that's just the kind of tosh they pour out!
:mad:

Call me a cynic, but it just sounds to me like this guy is a tory looking for ammunition to score points over the current govt in the house for political gain. I could be wrong and he may really care about the RAF, however I would urge caution as to what you divulge - it could bite you and I suspect he won't give two hoots. The tone of parts of his thread implies to me that his motivation is not as noble as he would like you to think.

For JFZ90, from Wikipedia with love :hmm: :

----------------------------------

Liddell-Grainger was born at Edinburgh and educated at Millfield School in Somerset and South Scotland Agricultural College. Before entering Parliament he ran a 250 acre farm in the Scottish Borders, and later became a company director in Newcastle of his family holdings in the City. He was also a Major in the Territorial Army with the 6th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, commanding the machine-gun Platoon and then X Company of the Battalion in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and has often acted as an adviser to the Ministry of Defence.

Liddell-Grainger is on the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. He is also a member of the All Parliamentary Armed Forces Scheme with the Royal Air Force. Liddell-Grainger was previously on the DEFRA select committee and the Scottish Committee, as well as on the all Parliamentary Radio Group and the Pharmaceutical Group. His interests include the economy, constitutional affairs, rural matters and he has also spoken out in favour of making Herceptin available for early-stage breast cancer sufferers.

----------------------------------


Sounds like a decent man - sure he's Conservative, but then no-one's perfect :ok: (joke)

To be honest, I dont care whether he's Labour, Tory, or bloody Martian. If this man can help deliver our Armed Forces out of the un-equipped, underfunded chaos we've been stuck in for years, then he's got my support.

well said MrFlibble.

As a member of the Armed Force I'm appalled that anyone is allowed in with English as poor as rafmatt's. :p

Mr Liddell-Grainger. Have you got any Pongo mates up there in Westminster who might want to start a similar crusade on behalf of us green types? Good on you!

Drumstick

Remember Churchill and the Wg Cdr.

Look where Churchill got.

Certainly 'channels' would ensure that what was passed was 'wholly accurate' and free from errors of interpretation. Note 'wholly' as related to accurate and not 'whole'.:)

Are we here
 

Sorry chicken leg lol
But are we here to talk about my English or the RAF.

So what my English is a bit :mad: but at least im trying.

MONKEYBOY :D

Personally i would like to see the RAF and the other armed forces stopped getting cut and get the equipment and manpower we so despretly need (i know my spell check don't work)

JFZ90. The most important qualification for what he is doing is not his links to the services cited by MrFlibble, helpful though they are. It is that he was Ben Knight's local MP and remains Graham and Trish Knight's MP. He is just doing his job as a constituency MP and that has nothing to do with party politics.

Tappers Dad

Seeing as this is about info on the Nimrod and it's safety, PVR rates, general dissent amongst those at ISK, I was wondering if you'd managed to aquire all the information you've been after for the BBC program you've been working closely with, that's due to air at the time of the BOI report. From what I've seen here, you've had a wealth of information.

Des Browne has a far more suitable path for this kind of information...


...it ends in his bin. :ugh:

Call me old fashioned. But rather than second guessing (as is so rife on this forum) why not let the Board of Inquiry publish their results. I still have faith in the system, if many don't.

If the speculation as to events that day were to stop, then a lot of hurt and upset could have been avoided and not added to the suffering already felt. Some people do not seem to realise that comments made in the press have had dire consequences on other families involved in this accident, and some of those who have been upset the most have been children. Some things which have been reported should never have made it into the media.

The BOI report is due very shortly, yes it is with the legal team, though I doubt very much that the speculation will end with that.

Some people would like to be allowed to grieve and not have their loved ones dragged through the press at every given opportunity

Will the MP also raise issues about other War related (and non war related) accidents, that can have managerial connotations.

I presume, Mr Liddell-Grainger, you are one of the many MPs I met last year - I had so many 'popping in' to tell me how hard life must have been and tending an ever-so-sympathetic ear, yet at the same time scraping for a bit of 'gen' to help secure your position in the 'house'.

Thanks for your 'sympathy', but I really have doubts as to your and many of your kind's actual motivation for digging into something which is:
a. beyond your comprehension
and b. a vehicle to further your political presence.

If you can do something, then I would be very, VERY appreciative, but slamming the Royal Air Force does not help anybody. It comes down to money - and that is beyond me, my immediate superior (line manager for those of that bent) or anyone else up the ladder.

Stretched, working hard with the resources we are left with and rather quite p*ssed off that those who might be able to intervene are looking in the wrong place.

Convince us, in this open forum, that your interest is well founded.

betty, lab queen & snow dog,
Why are you all so anti someone offering to help here?
I too still have faith in the BOI route, and I have little doubt that the results will be truthful and honest. But what I don't have faith in, is for it to publish the facts and problems with the fleet leading up to this accident.
It is many years since I was on the Nimrod fleet, and so I cannot speak first hand about on-going problems with fuel leaks etc. however, friends and colleagues still on the fleet tell me that it was 'more than common' and I would suggest that further incidents since the loss of XV230 seem to confirm that.
Now I dont know this politician from Adam, I've never met him nor do I know anything about him, but out of all this tragedy, he is the one, and only person who has stuck his head above the parapit and offered to help. What's wrong with that?? I don't know or care what his motives are frankly; if he can get something done then we should applaud him and support him.
Snow Dog, your final comments speak volumes:
'Stretched, working hard with the resources we are left with and rather quite p*ssed off that those who might be able to intervene are looking in the wrong place'
I couldn't agree with you more, so why not give the guy a call or drop him a line and tell him where its all going wrong?? It's pointless us all coming on Prune, bleating and whinging like we all do, and then pass up an opportunity to do something positive, when the opportunity arises.
We owe to the likes of Tappers Dad and the rest of the families left behind so lets just do it.
TSM

Like other posters I believe caution should be exercised and facts checked, but I think the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt for trying to help.

I am not against help towards giving the RAF what they need to be able to perform their work in a professional manner, What I am against is the amount of speculation, the lies, the hurtful comments, and the amount of needless details which have been printed in the press. None of those have had any bearing on gaining support or a change in manpower or resources for the RAF or the services as a whole.

Yes it is agonising waiting for the BOI report, it has been a very deeply agonising time ever since that fateful day, and some matters have not helped in this. No one wants to see more names added to the list of casualties or deaths, under any circumstances, there have been too many already.

Too often it's reported about the bad, hardly ever has it been mentioned of the support that has been given by the RAF and all the guys at ISK as a whole.

The BBC program which is being produced, if that was to show support for the need to increase resources, and to aid the fight in this area, then why were the RAF press officers not made aware of it's existence, not even those at ISK.

Nimrod Information
 

Very interesting Ian, I note that you made your posting on the very same day that Angus Robertson got a reply to his question on Nimrod fuel defects. Had to jump on the band-waggon.

1st May Hansard

Angus Robertson (Moray SNP): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average annual fuel defect rates of the Nimrod fleet per fifty flying hours were in each of the last 10 years: and will he make a statement.

Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces) MoD): The average annual fuel system defect ("fuel defect" is defined as any reported fault relating to the aircraft fuel system) rate per 50 flying hours for Nimrod fleet over the last 10 calendar years for which information is currently available, is as follows:

1996 3.93
1997 4.61
1998 4.72
1999 4.64
2000 3.83
2001 3.81
2002 3.83
2003 3.99
2004 4.75
2005 3.80


This tells me two things (1) If I want real action I will approach the MP who covers the Kinloss area (and I recommend others to do the same), and (2) MoD believes that the Nimrod fuel system was better in 2005 than in 1996. If you believe the latter you will believe anything, and it gives us some indication of what sort of BOI report will be issued by MoD when they decide to do it.

DV

DV, very interesting but surely the phrase 'fuel defect' is wholly ambiguous.

For instance a fuel defect may be the erroneous indication of a fuel flow indicator to a fuel tank problem.

'A fuel tank problem' was how the failure of a test launch of the Thor missile was described. The actual problem was the failure of the bottom of the fuel tank to lift off at the same speed as the rest of the missile.

In other words, lies , damn lies and . . .

Telling it how it is
 

The reference to Churchill and the wing commander was actually a reference to Desmond Morton of SIS http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news...ill.asp?ID=192
and the BBC Drama The Gathering Storm http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...ng_storm.shtml

essentially how you need proper and accurate information to persuade those who do not wish to acknowledge uncomfortable truths.